![]() | Current Issues | No.51 September 2007 |
||
On May 15th, the New York Times published an article entitled “An
amputee sprinter: Is he disabled or too-abled?” that has sparked
an intense debate about Paralympic sprinter Oscar Pistorius and the International
Association of Athletics Federations’ (IAAF) ban of springs, wheels
and other devices that may give the user an unfair advantage over another
athlete. Pistorius, a 20-year-old bilateral amputee from South Africa
has clocked record performances in the 100 meters, 200 meters, and 400
meters, nearing the Olympic qualifying times. At the South African national
championships in March, Oscar placed second in the 400 against the country’s
top able-bodied athletes. Yet critics have denounced these achievements
as a direct result of his two carbon fiber prosthetic legs known as the
Cheetahs. Some have regarded his success against able-bodied sprinters
as an unfair advantage because he has the ability to modify his legs to
improve efficiency. Ossur, the prosthetic company who currently sponsors
Pistorius, has publicly stated that the blade-like legs are, in fact,
passive devices that do not generate any powered movement, only returning
a percentage of kinetic energy put into them.
In response to the disabled community’s distress over the IAAF
Rule 144.2 on use of “technical aids” during competition,
Robert Hersh, a member of the IAAF Council appeared on May 31st on an
NPR program entitled “Prosthetics in sport: Disability or advantage?”
He explained that the ban of springs and wheels was intended to formalize
the pre-existing principle of fair play, in which athletes should not
use devices that may give them a skewed advantage in competition. The
IAAF has not banned prosthetic legs for athletic events. Hersh maintained
that should Oscar Pistorius wish to submit an application to authorize
the use of Cheetah legs in international competition, the IAAF would conduct
the “necessary biomechanical investigation to determine whether
his particular prosthesis does or does not convey an unfair advantage.”
Additionally, Hersh suggested a need for regulation within the prosthetic
community to ensure a level playing field within the Paralympic community.
In response, Brian Frasure, a Team Ossur Paralympic athlete disclosed
that his sprint times before and after his amputation have not significantly
altered, endorsing Pistorius’ unique athletic talent.
The contention between the right to compete and the right to fair play
has made the overlap between able-bodied and disabled sport explicit.
It raises issues of inclusion and progressive integration of athletes
without discrimination. The Center for the Study of Sport in Society believes
a ban that segregates athletes based on accessibility differences is not
in the spirit of Olympism. While the IAAF has yet to formally exclude
Oscar Pistorius from the event, we maintain that he should not be dismissed
on pure technicality, but rather he should be embraced as a unique athletic
individual. It is our recommendation to consider the validity of “technical
aids” on a case-by-case basis, determined through sufficient biomechanical
studies. Every athlete should have the right to excel to higher levels
of competition regardless of age, race, gender, religion or disability.
We extend our firm support to Oscar and his unprecedented achievements.
It is our hope that Oscar may serve as a mentor and pioneer for other
disabled athletes aspiring to reach high athletic competition within the
Olympic arena.
Contact
Eli A. Wolff & Whitney Brown
Center for the Study of Sport in Society Boston, USA Email: e.wolff@neu.edu ![]() http://www.icsspe.org/portal/index.php?w=1&z=5 |